I've only been in the crypto space for about a year now and spent far less time on community coins but the issue of equality and fairness comes up quite often in discussions and leads to heated arguments at times. The question that I've been personally tinkering about the most is that whether equality and fairness should be considered from a community perspective as a whole or the individuals that make up the community.
We all know that a whole is greater than its components but a circle is as strong as its weakest link. If coins/tokens get distributed equally among the participants and one of them decides to liquidate them right away, that impedes the project's long-term financial success. So, in essence, it is not fair to the other participants of the community, but fair for that person given the circumstances they may find themselves in.
In other words, I was wondering if the equality portion of the statement was contemplated to include any thoughts around considering the angle of hodler potential of the participants or whether it should be regarded in the most absolute sense where a participant's likely course of action after receiving the airdrop has no bearing on their eligibility.
The bigger point is that I've always wondered whether it's practically possible to convince everyone to hodl despite all the reasons to sell and whether this would result in greatness or catastrophe for that project.